.300 win mag -vs- 7mm Rem Mag


PDA






00juice
September 27, 2008, 09:31 PM
Hi all,
I'm thinking about getting either a .300 win. mag or a 7mm. rem mag as an all purpose gun for deer, bear, elk and perhaps some day moose. I want a gun that can shoot accurately out for distance. My regular deer hunting area gives me shooting opportunities out to 1000 yards. Most shots would be expected at 400 or less. I have been thinking about the .300 win. mag, but people have been saying to get the 7mm. mag. Suggestions?
Thanks

If you enjoyed reading about ".300 win mag -vs- 7mm Rem Mag" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
viking499
September 27, 2008, 09:34 PM
Never shoot a 300 mag, but my 7 mag has done everthing I ever asked it to. Zeroed in at 300. Taken deer with it beyond that. Would guess either would serve your purpose.

Polish_Pounder
September 27, 2008, 09:38 PM
Either will be fine, but shot placement is key. Let me assure you, you will not be taking shots past 400 yards. 300 yards is a long, long way. Unless you specifically set up for extra-long shots and practice your butt off, it is improbable you will hit any part of the deer. It is also not hunting at that distance, just killing. I 'know' a ton of people who 'routinely' get deer at 300+ yards, with zero hold-over, no wind drift compensation, etc. It is BS. Not that it can't be done, it just very seldom is.

-Polish

neal7250
September 27, 2008, 09:38 PM
I have them both, and I won't part with either one. A lot has to do with the bullet that you are using. I use the 7MM for deer, but the 300 will carry a larger bullet better.

Cypress
September 27, 2008, 09:44 PM
1000 YARDS!!!! I refuse to comment.

Wait, I think I just commented.

Shawnee
September 27, 2008, 09:56 PM
Both are awesome calibers and grand fun but, of those two choices, I would take the 7mag. for performance, cost and comfort.

:cool:

jmr40
September 27, 2008, 09:59 PM
There are people who are capable of taking shots at 400+ yards and taking game cleanly. If you have to ask for advice you are not one of them. For me I am very comfortable at 200 and would take a shot at up to 300 if conditions are right. Like Harry Callahan said, "A man has to know his limitations."

00juice
September 27, 2008, 10:05 PM
I'm not planning on going out and shooting a deer at 1000 yards. I would like to have something that will let me reach as far as I am capable. I have recently started shooting my .223 alot. I have been shooting out to 400 yards off a bench, and am getting better. I plan to continue shooting my .223 alot to build my skills, but just want a hunting rifle that will hopefully meet my future skills.
thanks

Eric F
September 27, 2008, 10:23 PM
if you reload, 7mm can shoot a lot flatter than the 300. With the 7mm bullet selection would be key. at ranges up to 300 yards you will shoot through the broad side of any deey with little execption with either round. The 7mm is a bit more versital in that again with the right bullet you could varmit hunt with it too. You can buy 7mm mag every where but 300 mag seems a bit more scarce. all in all I would go 7mm mag, or might think of an ultra mag.

Northslope Nimrod
September 27, 2008, 11:59 PM
7mm
Pros: Great deer gun, especially long range shots.
Cons: I do not like this caliber for elk. I think it is ok for long shots, but when I hunt elk, most of my shots have been under 50 yards. I think the 7mm travels too fast and is too small (bullet) to do the proper damage (and provide shock) at those close ranges. My uncle lost a monster bull when he shot one at 20 yards through the lungs with his 7mm.

300
Pros: Very versatile round. Can take about anything. Close or far.
Cons: Ammo is not as cheap as say... the 30-06. Recoil is punishing for the gain you get over....say.. a 30-06. A few years ago I thought of getting a 300 Win Mag to replace my 30-06. Someone then recommended I take a good look at the ballistics...especially if I use Federal High Energy Loads. I was suprised. There really wasn't that big of a difference. I concluded that I could shoot high energy loads if I really want to reach out there (as if I had a .300 win mag) or I could shoot regular loads for most of my needs. I kept the 06 and saved my pocket book and shoulder.
Sorry, sounds like I'm recommending a third option. :rolleyes: BUT if you must choose between 7mm and the .300, I would go for the .300 since you are also after game larger than deer.

JShirley
September 28, 2008, 12:00 AM
I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Shawnee, for once.

But it could be just because it's a smaller caliber. The 7mm will give you very close to .300 WM energy, with less recoil and flatter shots.

175 gr (11.3 g) Soft Point @ 2,860 ft/s (870 m/s) 3,178 ft·lbf (4,309 J)

vs.

.300's 180 grain @ 2960 fps for 3,502 ft·lbs.

Really, I would think about how likely you are to use this for each type of game. If you anticipate primarily deer and elk, you might want to go for the 7mm. If you're thinking of taking on brown bear and moose, the .300's ability to throw a heavier bullet (200 grain @ 2700 fps) might be welcome, despite the significantly heavier recoil.

Northslope, the 175 grain 7mm has good sectional density, which provides penetration with good bullet selection. Here are some heavy for caliber SD's for comparison:
.264" (6.5mm) 160 grain, SD .328
.284" (7mm) 175 grain, SD .310
.308" (.30) 200 grain, SD .301
.308" (.30) 220 grain, SD .331
.321" (8mm) 220 grain, SD .301
.338" (.338) 250 grain, SD .313
.375" (.375) 300 grain, SD .305
.416" (.416) 400 grain, SD .330
.458" (.45) 500 grain, SD .341

John

Shawnee
September 28, 2008, 01:29 AM
JShirley

ROTFLMAO !:D

Take some aspirin and drink plenty of fluids. I'm sure you'll recover, probably.


Northslope...

"My under lost a monster bull when he shot one at 20 yards through the lungs with his 7mm."

I would respectfully submit that the real problem was the choice of shot placement - a better option being a placement that wrecked the mobility of the animal (ie. through the shoulders or a CNS shot).

:cool:

cliffy
September 28, 2008, 01:50 AM
My son wants a .300 WSM for deer-hunting, while I'm comfortable with my .243 Winchester. What Gives? Blasting away a mere whitetail does not require a cannon. You and I should both know this. His synopsis involves future hunts against gigantic Elk, etc. When I die, I hope he'll cherish my inherited .243 Winnie Pooh. I have no idea how to talk him out-of such massive over-kill he seems to have his heart set-on. If 2200 fps/lbs of muzzle force cannot subdue his quarry in the 21st Century, I didn't teach him to aim as well as I thought I had. Actually, he's twice as accurate as I am. So, why does he desire so potent a round? I'm confused and seemingly under-powered regarding a valid answer. Chances are currently that only Wolves will be left to shoot anyway. cliffy

Northslope Nimrod
September 28, 2008, 01:57 AM
Shawnee:

True. Lungs was not a perfect shot. Elk was running past him. He was over 80 yrs old at the time. But the bullet just shot right through. To be fair, I don't think he was shooting "premium" ammo. At ranges that close, I still prefer the .30 caliber bullets.

gvnwst
September 28, 2008, 02:37 AM
the 7mm will do what the .300 will do, with a flatter trajectory and less recoil, but with slightly less energy. if you hunt bear a LOT, go with the .300. it may just save a limb, or even your life (lets hope it doesn't come to that...:p) if not, go with the 7mm.

Jst1mr
September 28, 2008, 03:06 AM
This comparison is easy....either will do a great job and more for what you want. This is a coin flip in my opinion. Just remember, when you shoot off a bench at the range- the target stays put. Part of what makes long-range shots at animals iffy is what the animal might do during the time the bullet is on the way. What was (or would have been) a perfectly placed shot at trigger squeeze time can become a tragic gut shot due to animal movement (plus all the regular variations in wind, elevation, range estimation, etc). Us bowhunters deal with this even within 20-25yds.

"My under lost a monster bull when he shot one at 20 yards through the lungs with his 7mm."

Every animal I've double-lunged at 20yds (including a 6X6 bull elk) with an arrow went down....even w/o expanding, would've thought that a fatal shot...sure he got both lungs?

cliffy
September 28, 2008, 03:21 AM
Some .30 calibers are, to date, over-rated powerwise. Some 7mm Magnums kick .30 caliber butt. Some 6.5mm rifles are totally awesome, mainly referring to the NEW Ruger Hawkeye .264 Winchester Magnum reincarnation. 140 grain 6.5mm fare is designed for 500 yard kills within the extreme prowess of a .264 Winchester Magnum! Sorry to downgrade this thread to upgrade to the flattest shooting, most potent caliber ever devised. What in America can this caliber NOT KILL cleanly? cliffy

VINTAGE-SLOTCARS
September 28, 2008, 03:27 AM
Like everyone is saying they are pretty close. I had that delema 30 years ago and shot a Remington 7 mag and my uncles Winchester 300 mag. I did a lot of reading on both. For deer and elk. placement is formost. I settled on the 7 mag in a Remington. I has been my favorite reach way out there rifle. I also love target shooting with hand loads. I shoot a sierra 168 gr. boatail and with a rest can hit a quarter every time at 100-150 yards. PS. A good scope is necessary as are quality mounts. Chose your rifle practice and be confident with it and enjoy shooting it.

cliffy
September 28, 2008, 03:35 AM
What Power -X to use? How fast can it be dialed down, including objective adjustment, if necessary? 4.5-14x40mm for long range? Is a mere 3-9x40mm adequate? I'm lost in the power of it all. cliffy

VINTAGE-SLOTCARS
September 28, 2008, 03:41 AM
I use a 3x9 it has a bullet drop compensator I just dial in the range 100-500 yards. It has never failed me. Any one else have scope ideas??

rangerruck
September 28, 2008, 04:18 AM
I think unless you just want some sheer knockdown power, then i agree with both Jshirley and shawnee here, i would also take the 7milly simple because it is ammo that is everywhere, and recoil is not near as punishing. I do not see a reason to go beyond 30.06 for anything within 600 yds, that has to do with a 7.62 size bullet.

qajaq59
September 28, 2008, 07:13 AM
I've had both and preferred the .300. However, either one will work your shoulder over pretty good if you shoot enough to be a good shot at a 1,000 yards. That's going to require some serious practice.

JShirley
September 28, 2008, 11:14 AM
You're looking at the difference between about 19 and 25 ft-lbs of recoil, IIRC. That 30% additional will add up pretty quickly, even if you don't feel a shot or two while hunting.

Afy
September 28, 2008, 11:17 AM
Both kick hard. Thus .300 WM it is a great caliber.

However shot placement will beat caliber everything.

I have heard stories of people dropping large (100 lb+) deer with the humble .22 lr as well.

Jeff F
September 28, 2008, 11:39 AM
My regular deer hunting area gives me shooting opportunities out to 1000 yards

1000 yards is a long shot. Have you ever shot at anything a true 1000 yards away. I hang out with some long range guys and I'd bet theres only a couple that would even think about making that kind of shot on an animal.

KI.W.
September 28, 2008, 11:41 AM
Never ever old-fashioned rimmed cases! :cool:

missoulaz28
September 28, 2008, 05:53 PM
I personally use the 300, my brother uses the 7mm, both work out to 400yds. If you hand load you can get the 180 in the 300 going over 3100fps, has great power.


"My under lost a monster bull when he shot one at 20 yards through the lungs with his 7mm."

If he lost the elk how do you know it was a double lung, and not six inches farther back in the guts?

berettashotgun
September 28, 2008, 09:04 PM
I personally prefer 7mm cartridges.
Think a 7mm STW.

Acera
September 28, 2008, 10:15 PM
If you are considering reloading, take a look at the available bullets in both calibers. I went with the .300 for the vast variety from so many different manufactures.

Both can be used, when reloaded properly, for many uses.

Der Verge
September 28, 2008, 11:06 PM
I have owned both. I still have my 7mm. For me, while hunting game in North America, I find that with appropriate bullet selection, both will do the job and then some. Personally, I find most high powered .30caliber chamberings give off excessive recoil and muzzle blast for what they actually do. I also like the better trajectory and better SD of 7mm bullets. My $0.02

SST
September 29, 2008, 12:56 AM
My dad and I went through this back in 1969. Dad built a 300WinMag and I built a 7mmRemMag. We went elk hunting and both killed elk. As for deer hunting, the 7mmRemMag got used a whole lot more. A 300 is a lot of gun for deer hunting. If your rifle is used mostly for game bigger than deer, go with the 300. If not, go with the 7mm.

jbech123
September 29, 2008, 02:12 AM
My uncle lost a monster bull when he shot one at 20 yards through the lungs with his 7mm.
Sorry, but I'm gonna have to call BS on this one. You may even think it happened, but I will guarantee it did not. There is no animal on the planet that will survive a double lung shot from a 7mag at 20 yards...none. A few may live long enough to kill you, but even they will die shortly after you.
And let's suspend reality for a second and say that your story was actually true. How would having a 300mag have made a difference? an extra 100-200 fps velocity?, an extra 20 grains of bullet weight? A bullet diameter difference of .024"(24 hundredths of an inch)?
Now a poorly placed shot that did not hit the lungs at all, that is another matter entirely.

RonE
September 29, 2008, 02:51 AM
I have had both in Rugar #1 rifles and kept the .300 because of the greater choices of bullet weights.

In my opinion, the key to the retirement system is 180 grains at 3,000 fps or above. Difficult for the 7mm Rem Mag

jjk308
September 29, 2008, 11:06 AM
Try a 300 Weatherby Mag. The 300 Win Mag is a compromise of sorts, case volume too small and neck too short, not sure if it was to stay withing a rifle size constraint or the production equipment. - You should get up to 200 fps more with better accuracy.
You WILL RELOAD. Even Walmart charges $40 for 20 rounds, although once you buy the brass the cost difference in reloads between it and the Win Mag is negligible.
With a 220 gr, bullet it'll take down any N. American animal, fast, and the lighter bullets/lower loads are fine for deer.
Best of all I got a Weatherby Vanguard in 300 Wby for well under $400 at Walmart.

If you enjoyed reading about ".300 win mag -vs- 7mm Rem Mag" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!